D&D 5E Moar Feats

[Evenglare]

For what it's worth. The rule reads that the minimum hitpoints you REGAIN from the roll is 2xCon. If it said "The minimum number rolled is 2xCon, the I'd agree with those that say you get 15, but it doesn't say that at all. So you roll as normal 1d6+5 to see how much HP you gain. If that number is less than 2x Con (10 in this case) then instead of the roll you gain 10. The feat doesn't seem that terribly worded or complicated to me.

 

[Remathilis]

For what it's worth. The rule reads that the minimum hitpoints you REGAIN from the roll is 2xCon. If it said "The minimum number rolled is 2xCon, the I'd agree with those that say you get 15, but it doesn't say that at all. So you roll as normal 1d6+5 to see how much HP you gain. If that number is less than 2x Con (10 in this case) then instead of the roll you gain 10. The feat doesn't seem that terribly worded or complicated to me.

I'll accept that interpretation.

 

[Umbran]

These feats rock! To hell with 3E/4E-style mechanical bonus feats.

Because "raise your Con by one, and get a higher minimum number of hit points you regain" is not a mechanical bonus?

Is there something non-mechanical in this that I'm not seeing?

 

[Agamon]

For what it's worth. The rule reads that the minimum hitpoints you REGAIN from the roll is 2xCon. If it said "The minimum number rolled is 2xCon, the I'd agree with those that say you get 15, but it doesn't say that at all. So you roll as normal 1d6+5 to see how much HP you gain. If that number is less than 2x Con (10 in this case) then instead of the roll you gain 10. The feat doesn't seem that terribly worded or complicated to me.

Yeah, that sounds about right to me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because "raise your Con by one, and get a higher minimum number of hit points you regain" is not a mechanical bonus?

Is there something non-mechanical in this that I'm not seeing?

Quite!

The only one of those three feats I'd take in 4e is the blasting caster feat. And then only under the very rare case where I was expecting a lot of enemies to resist my damage type and didn't have a range of spells. It's both less interesting and generally less useful than the 4e PHB's Resounding Thunder or Lasting Frost. (seriously, +0.5 damage and ignore resistance isn't that huge - and is very mechanical when compared to Resounding Thunder or Psychic Lock - both of which tie in with their damage type).

So that's two feats that are pure mechanics - and less interesting than 4e feats.

The third, Dungeon Delver, is only very situationally useful.

 

[doctorhook]

Because "raise your Con by one, and get a higher minimum number of hit points you regain" is not a mechanical bonus?

Is there something non-mechanical in this that I'm not seeing?

I was hoping nobody would notice that one. Still, that +1 to Con marks the feat as entirely 5E in style.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Quite!

The only one of those three feats I'd take in 4e is the blasting caster feat. And then only under the very rare case where I was expecting a lot of enemies to resist my damage type and didn't have a range of spells. It's both less interesting and generally less useful than the 4e PHB's Resounding Thunder or Lasting Frost. (seriously, +0.5 damage and ignore resistance isn't that huge - and is very mechanical when compared to Resounding Thunder or Psychic Lock - both of which tie in with their damage type).

So that's two feats that are pure mechanics - and less interesting than 4e feats.

The third, Dungeon Delver, is only very situationally useful.

All three 4e feats you listed are pure mechanics. They exist only to allow for more complex tactical combat strategies that have almost nothing to do with you character lore-wise. (When's the last time you thought, "My wizard is the kind of guy whose psychic spells inflict temporary attack debuffs"?) Elemental Adept allows you to completely change up your spell selection to focus on your favored element without fear of dealing half damage to a bunch of stuff. It allows you to be a "fire mage."

Really, I think that's what a lot of the best 5e feats do: take a character concept that might be a little underpowered or rough around the edges and allow it to stand out. Of course they accomplish that through mechanics; that's what feats ARE. (And yes, stuff like Durable and probably Skiled and Moderately Armored and others are less exciting, but they still can serve a purpose.)

 

[Gargoyle]

While I agree it's specialized and may require some communication to keep players from taking in certain campaigns, it also occurs to me that the Dungeon Delver feat could be a good indication that your player wants to do some dungeon crawls, and maybe the DM should consider that as a topic of that conversation.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yeah. A wizard with a 16 con though heals his max roll per hd though. That should take some of the squishy out of them!

Mountain Dwarf wizard, baby!

 

[Ashkelon]

Re: Durable

You have to get rid of your preconceptions of what a "roll" is from 4e, 3e, 2e, and 1e. 5e is different. Just look at the rogue's reliable talent feature or the halfling's lucky ability. Both call out a roll and only refer to the result of the die roll, not the total of the die oll and all applicable bonuses. The same happens fro great weapon fighting style, and man other features that affect rolls. The designers deliberately separate the total from the results of the rolled dice.

This would imply that your 2x Con minimum replaces the rolled dice only, not the total. So a 20 con wizard with durable would gain 15 HP per HD spent.

Of course, the feat is still a rather poor choice for most PCs. Tough, +2 Con, or resilient are all better options for most PCs.